Hands-on with Fujifilm's new XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens

Hands-on with Fujifilm's XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR lens

It's been on Fujifilm's X-series roadmap for a while, but now it's real - the XF 16-55mm F2.8 R LM WR is a 24-83mm equivalent, weather-sealed standard zoom for Fujifilm's high-end X-series interchangeable lens cameras, which offers a fast maximum aperture of F2.8 throughout its zoom range. As International CES gets started in Las Vegas, we grabbed a few minutes with the new zoom. Click through this slideshow for some images.

Comments

Nice, possibly well-made. Are its electrical circuits using proper tin/lead solder, or will it stop working like all the others do?

Come on it is 2015 and I think it is about time that photographers equipment became again as long-lived and reliable as it was before the EU and others decided to RoHS everything we spend money on, forcing us to repurchase over and over again. My kids are in their teens now, but in their lifetime they will have to replace their DSLRs and lenses 7 or 8 times unless something is done, killing the planet and exhausting natural resources in the process, not to mention the west becoming utterly dependent on those of China and Taiwan and Japan in the most unhealthy way.

Completely irrelevant EU bashing added to a lens hands-on. Btw with things like much extended consumer laws in many EU countries consumers are much better protected against manufacturers than in other regions. But that's really not the topic here.

So this weighs more & is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 24-85 VR which can sit on an already small & light Nikon d750 which also has the benefit of full frame & mind blowing AF & incredible flash system.I don't get all the Fuji love in.Can someone enlighten me?

You may be right that a D610 with a 24-85 is more versatile and may get better shots at some apertures and focal lengths, but what makes the Fuji more desirable than a nikon is that it just looks WAY cooler Plus, that 24-85 is a variable aperture zoom, while this one is the same f-stop througout the zoom range.

But mainly it's that the Fuji is so beautiful. It looks like something David Bailey would use to shoot Jean Shrimpton or that Eddie Adams would take with him to Vietnam.

you know what they wanted to say. yes, it's f2.8 in terms of light gathering capabilities and yes, it's equivalent to f4.2 in terms of depth of field in the FF (35mm) world. and finally, yes, it has the same max aperture throughout its range, even without quotes. any other FAQ?

Oh boy, here we go again... No, in terms of light gathering capabilities it is not equivalent to f2.8 35mm format. Aperture size defines illuminance, not luminosity. Because 35mm camera system uses bigger sensor it will gather more light in total than APS-C camera for the same aperture size.

Well, actually it depends on how you look at it. No a 1.5x sensor doesn't gather the same amount of light as a full frame sensor at any given aperture due to the size but at f2.8 this lens will give the same exposure as a 2.8 lens on a full frame camera which is all that matters really.

It will be same exposure, but picture will not have same SNR. Because 35mm sensors have bigger area, they gather more light. That is why usually the bigger sensor the better it handles noise.

@HowaboutRAW: Sure, for APS-C it is f2.8 16-55mm. But you cannot compare it with f2.8 24-83mm on 35mm in terms of light gathering and DOF. And F stop have nothing to do with the sensor size. F stop represents aperture size relative to focal length.

Billons of years ago, when I shot with 35mm and medium format, when I would take a light reading, I would put that into my lens, 35mm or 6x6,6x7. The ratio of film size to apture as to do with lens size. F2.8 is is F2.8. In land of 4x5 cameras or point and shots. DOF inherent to the foremat via lens focal length. An 8mm FL will always have more DOF then say a 300mm lens....no matter the sensor or fikm size. Even if 8mm is normal.

Light gathering can be relative to the sensor/film area. More light gets gathered by the 35mm lens of the same f number, but there's more sensor area to cover--thereby as general rule making bigger sensors shot with the relative f-stops better for low light work.

Okay, I looked up that f-stop ratio thing, and indeed it's focal length to exit pupal, and that last has a huge amount to do with how much light hits the sensor.

Thanks Silvarum for reminding us F stop is A to focal, many get confuse on this and sometimes completely denies this relation. Specially if they try to compare to FF equiv.

But if it really matters what's the total light entering into the camera to illuminate the sensor? When the light intensity on a given area will be same that define its impact on Exposure.

Now if you try to put another factor i.e. SNR or higher ISO performance, then sure bigger sensors have better SNR, but should you count it to define Aperture? that is counting same advantage multiple time towards bigger sensor format. Leave aperture as aperture.

Otherwise Everyone will start counting advantage of their favorite system format and put it on Aperture definition.

IMO apperture at same fstop is same value across the formats. i.e. f/2 on FF and f/2 on 1" are same. (Don't think about fullframe equivalence, we will bring it into the equation later, when will speak about the focal length)

* They will have same light intensity on sensor surface. So will calculate the same exposure in given time.

* But since the focal length is different (bigger in FF than 1"), the divider will have higher impact on smaller sensor, making the lens opening smaller on small formats.

* The image circles will be smaller as a result on 1"So the total light going inside camera body will be less

* Bigger format lens will need bigger glass to cover the image circle big enough for the bigger sensor. So the lens will be heavier, more difficult to design, correct and expensive to produce.

* Bigger Sensors will have better SNR / High ISO performance (but that's all electronics, nothing to do with optics).

* Bigger sensor will produce more heat inside the camera body, so will be more difficult to design for applications, where high readout is required, like video, higher burst rate, electronic shutter etc.

* And less significant factor (subjective) is the Dof will be shallower on FF which can be advantage or disadvantage depending on your applications. Portraits (maybe) advantage, in Landscape (arguably) disadvantage (longer exposure).

Naveed, that is exactly what I meant. Original question was about light gathering capabilities. And 35mm equivalent lens will gather more light than APS-C lens at the same F stop, because it will have bigger opening area.Total light matters, but only if you take in account sensor area. Bigger sensors do not have less noise or better SNR, they just gather more signal (light). Usually SNR on bigger sensors even worse than APS-C or Micro Four Thirds, because newer technology comes faster for small more popular sensors.In the end, if you take exactly same picture (DOF and AOF), bigger sensor will not give you any advantage. It is just bit more flexible.Personally, I'm very happy with cost/performance of APS-C and Micro Four Thirds.

Silvarum, you are doing the same thing again mate, relating indirect attributes, directly.

SnR is "Signal to Noise Ratio", Signals are digital signals captured and transmitted by Sensor. That's why ISO is set on camera bodies and Aperture on lenses.

Other things you quoted, newer technologies comes faster on small sensors (agreed) but the time difference is not quick enough (never been) that small sensors overtake bigger one at the same time frame. Yes New Nikon D7100 (Dxo Low light ISO 1256) can easily beat the first Canon Fullframe 1Ds (ISO score 954), but no smaller format camera could beat the first Nikon FullFrame D3 (ISO Score 2290) launched in 2007.

And the latest Sony A7s with mere 12MP resol got 3702 low light ISO score.a simple fact "Fullframe usually have bigger pixel pitch, and a larger pixel area is capable of capturing more photon hits than a smaller pixel in any given timeframe".

And then you mentioned about the Original question was about light gathering capabilities. Yes but as I tried to explain earlier, it doesnt matter how much total light you are gathering, it's the light intensity that counts when falling on the sensor, and when sizes are different.

Take an example, take a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 lens put it on fullframe camera D750 expose it with wide open apperture f/1.8 and note the exposure time. Now use the same Fullframe lens on a APSC body .. Nikon D5200 .. use the same wide open aperture .. in the same available light. Do you see any different time of exposure? I guess you already know the fact, that you won't. So the matter of the fact is, it doesn't matter how much light is getting into the body, if its not falling on the sensor, its not giving any help in low light situation.

Naveed, total light is all that matters in terms of noise.1. For digital sensors ISO is just a number to represent lightness of image like if you'd took the picture with same ISO on film. Actual signal gain different for each sensor (even between same sized) and calibrated by manufacturer. ISO 100 of FF and APS-C is totally different signal gain. Because APS-C does not gather as much light as FF, it needs to amplify the signal more to achieve ISO 100 like behavior, which means that it will amplify noise too. If you set ISO in way, that signal gain will be the same, then, surprise, you will get more or less same amount of noise.2. If you put lens with FF coverage on APS-C camera, then APS-C camera will not gather all light produced by that lens. But if you use device like Metabones SpeedBooster, then it will concentrate all light on APS-C area and you will get different exposure time.

Consider it like this:You have 35mm f2.8 for APS-C and 50mm f2.8 for FF. You shoot both at f2.8, ISO 100, same shutter speed lets say 1/50. You will get same exposure and similar angle of view (not DOF though). Total amount captured of light is proportional to area of the aperture. For APS-C it will be 122mm², for FF - 250mm². Therefore FF will get more light through that lens. Because it gets more light, it will have more signal to work with and to achieve ISO100-like behavior it does not need to amplify it during Analog-to-Digital conversion process as much.If you set FF camera to ISO 200 and lens for f4, then it will be exactly same exposure as APS-C with ISO 100 and f2.8 lens. You will have same DOF, angle of view and exposure. Exactly the same picture. This way aperture area for FF will be 122mm² (same as for APS-C) and because you set it to ISO 200, actual gain will be about the same as for APS-C.

ISO settings just map signal gain number to same standard. I think it is mapped so exposure of 0.1 lux*seconds will be converted to 18% grey (118 sRGB for 8-bit file, or L=50 for lab) for ISO 100.

@HowaboutRAW: well, that is why going FF will probably be the best thing if APS-C is not enough :)Grain per square cm will be the same. It will just look bigger, because you will magnify it more for smaller film for the final image.And amount of pixels have little impact on noise. You can always downsample to get less noise. Of course, because not all pixel area is used to capture light, you will loose some useful sensor area with higher amount of pixels.

Yes Silvarum, I am well aware of ISO standards mate, light gain across diferent standards and amplification etc. That's why I mentioned it in that department, signal noise etc.

I thought to mention metabone while giving you the above examples, but then didn't brought it into the discussion because it will confuse the matter even more. It's an additional accessory and is exactly here to tell the point that I made earlier (light intensity and a stop brighter performance).

Now back to the original point, which you try not to address, is, apperture is related to lens and act as a focal length divider that tells how much light is open to reach the sensor. The one that's not reaching, doesn't count.

we will talk about ISO another day, but I dont think your point is helping here much in your favor. APSC smaller sensor struggle more to reach the FF standard of sensitivity is all what I was saying earlier.

P.s. in your 35mm on APSC and 50mm on FF sensor example. Keep the sensor sensitivity same, at f2.8 apperture both are getting the same exposure, if you keep the f stop same, is all am trying to express you here.

If you increasing the ISO on FF to match the APSC noise level, this is another component we are talking here i.e. sensor. Yes on FF it will behave better.

Apperture to lens "f/2.8 = f/2.8" on all camera lenses (for Exposure) Yes Dof will be more on smaller sensor bodies

ISO sensitivity is same "ISO100 = ISO100" to all camera sensor (for Exposure) Yes noise will be higher on smaller sensor bodies

Silvarum, like in all these discussions, your points are only valid in theory, as for practical purposes equivalence is also a result of optical performance and sensor efficency.The whole discussion about equivalence is mostly of academic nature and doesn't help for buying decisions

My point was, that they are getting same exposure, but not same amount of light and therefore it would affect noise levels in the end.We are not increasing ISO on FF to match noise on APS-C. We are increasing ISO to match same level of signal gain, so we can fairly compare both results.If you want fully equivalent picture (that is DOF, AOF and shutter speed) then you will get same amount of light regardless of camera format you use.f2.8 does not equal f2.8 across different formats. Just like focal length will give you different angle of view, aperture size will give you different amount of light.

@HowaboutRAW: It does not reduce noise, but isn't it the point to have aesthetically pleasing picture?Read noise tends to be about the same regardless of pixel size. High res cameras would produce more detail for NR algorithms to work with. But, you are right, low res sensors have less read noise. For video low res sensors definitely have advantage.

"...and therefore it would affect noise levels in the end."I know, but in real-world application, sensor efficiency reduces this effect.My advice: Skip the theory and pick the system that gives you best package of features and IQ that is suitable for YOUR type of photography. Sensor size nowadays has lost a lot of its importance in this respect.And still the useless discussions in forums will continue forever.

Michael_13, I disagree. It does help with buying decisions as it shows that bigger sensors will not necessarily be a better choice as they only offer you more flexibility on open end and slightly better low light performance. As for optical performance - yes, bigger sensors have less demand for lens quality. For sensor efficiency - smaller sensors usually have advantage here.For your last post - that is true. I am just saying, that whole cult about bigger sensors and full frame is irrelevant.

Even if you don't agree, we are mostly in the same boat: I subscribe to all the points you just listed. All I want to add is that you don't even have to learn the theory: Just look at the results of different systems that represent your type of photography and pick the system you like best. Nowadays, the difference in IQ is so little in most applications that for most people sensor size - and its theory ;-) - is irrelevant.

No the point is to actually reduce noise. Sweeping dust under the couch doesn't count.

The Prime feature in DXO 9,10 (and similarly PhotoNinja) has some promise for future in camera NR, but right now it takes on the order of 2 minutes per file to actually reduce noise in the file. And it doesn't involve down sampling.

Michael_13:But learning is such a great thing! Theory can help to choose right system for those rare applications where sensor size can make difference.Any person can take pictures without any knowledge of optics and physics (most consumers probably do). Sometimes even monkeys can do that ;-)

HowaboutRAW:But why do you reduce noise? Reducing noise simply to reduce noise is not very rational thing to do. Let there be some noise if it looks good enough and not disturbing.

But it's like comparing engines for cars and trucks. 1hp of power is 1hp on both of them, but doubtful, that 600hp truck can go as fast as 600hp car.If you want equivalent shot or looking for equivalent lens on other camera format, then you need 3 things to be the same: DOF, angle-of-view and shutter speed. Aperture size defined by DOF and angle of view for specific format. Brightness of shot is irrelevant as it can be changed either afterwards in post processing or via ISO on camera, does not really matter.You say, by using same focal length, angle of view will be different, therefore you cannot treat same focal length lenses for different formats as the same. I say, by using same f-stop on different formats, DOF (and total amount of light) will be different, and therefore, you cannot treat same f-stop lenses for different formats as the same. It will be unfair.Either use same both focal length and f-stop (and then crop larger format) or none at all.

when you comparing different aspects of a system, then chose the standards, and when you talking about the whole system .. then yes, obviously go generic and say fullframe system better noise performance, shallower dof etc. But when talking specific about fstop then agree on what's standard i.e. f/2.8 is 2.8 divider value to the focal length and it will give same brightness impact, so it's same, regardless of the system.

and for 100th time, no, we are not measuring dof calculations here ... am really impressed!!

Total Light = Exposure x Sensor Area. You cannot ignore sensor area if it is different. Same f-stop will produce different result on different formats. If total amount of light was irrelevant, then f/2 on my tiny mobile phone camera would have been same as f/2 on full frame. It is not. Full frame gets more light -> more signal -> less need for signal gain -> less noise and more DR.Brightness however is irrelevant, as digital sensors have only one real sensitivity value and most cameras today use "isoless" ADC (except maybe for Canon), which means that noise produced by them will be the more or less the same regardless of ISO setting. You will get similar results by increasing exposure in post-processing. You can check it yourself by taking two pictures at for example f/4, 1/500, ISO100 and f/4, 1/500, ISO800, and then increase exposure in post by +3 for ISO100 shot.

Bec we are talking about raw impact of a system here .. not post processing .. post processing has its limits, headrooms. I know your example about Isoless exposures, they all have their limits. it's not completely Iso-less as such!

Exactly - to gain exposure! If as you say we assume DOF is not considered here, then why bother with f-stop at all? Just use higher ISO setting to gain exposure. Only you would use larger aperture rather than ISO to gain exposure because with larger aperture you will gain more light and have less noise, and that was my point.

Original question was about light gathering capabilities, which is not exposure, because lenses for bigger format will gather more light at same f-stop.

plus you are now changing your point .. your point was f2.8 is not f2.8. still am happy if you agree to that ..

and now whatever your point about larger aperture and not higher Iso .. I think depending on the situation it can be true, but is another debate and am not entering into another discussion with you ... :))

Well, maybe we a bit off on semantics then. I understand light gathering capabilities as "how much light in total goes through this particular lens". Not how much it projects per unit area. I simply don't see how "per area unit" fits in "gathering" - you either gather it or not, doesn't matter how you will project it afterwards.In the first case, f2.8 is not f2.8 across different formats. In the second case, I agree, f2.8 is f2.8, but then you still have to consider different sensor (gathering) areas as separate argument.

I see it that way - when you press shutter button, what your camera does - is simply collecting light. And in the end, all that matters is how much light you've collected. And that is defined by shutter speed and aperture diameter (focal-length divided by f-stop) and maybe sensor efficiency too.

yes buddy .. the physical area for a large format lens will be larger for the same fnumber, because the focal length to give that angle of view will be larger too .. but the fnumber will be same.

and yes the total number of photons the larger sensor will accumulate at a given exposure will be more than a smaller sensor. but f/2.8 will be f/2.8, as per definition, it's relative to the focal length. You don't need to bring your inch tape to measure the lens pupil across different systems here.. as it's the ratio, in mathematical terms

the actual focal length of the lens is all it matters. a 100mm lens will give same Dof across the different systems. it's just that they all have different crop factors so the angle of view will be different, so the impact will be different.

or you can measure it in terms of actual (physical) aperture diameter (but then you shouldn't count the focal length factor, otherwise you will be multiplying the impact twice, a common mistake normally photographers do).

but again it's a separate discussion .. will save it for another day!!

I'm glad that this lens is protected from Flying Fish with its hood- I'm sure the warranty department is especially happy about this feature. Before the invent of the hood, I'm pretty sure photographers who photographed on or near the ocean carried a small bat to knock them away just before they made contact with the front element.

More about gear in this article

Whether you've bought an inexpensive Fujifilm X-A5 with a kit lens, or a higher-end body like the X-T3, at some point you're going to want some new glass. We've picked out the best X-mount lenses for various shooting situations to aid you in your search.

Richard Butler's choice of Gear of the Year isn't a product launched this year (our choices of best products of the year were recognized in the DPReview.com Awards), instead it's the one that's prompted him to work on his photography. So what's so special about the Fujifilm 56mm F1.2 APD?

Dan Hogman has made a career as an architect, while pursuing photography in his free time. In his eyes the two fields are closely related, and finds photography helps him look for new vantage points to capture architecture he likes. Take a look at his photos and find out more him. See gallery

UPDATE: Fujifilm's new firmware for the X-T1 is now available. It promises to overhaul autofocusing performance and 'introduces a new AF system' to this X-series flagship body. Firmware 4.00 aims to take significant steps towards solving issues with moving subjects and focusing in low contrast conditions. Read more

Fujifilm has rolled out firmware updates aimed at fixing quirks in the X100T and X-T1, improving image quality in the FinePix S1 superzoom, and improving OIS functionality in several X-mount zoom lenses. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.